Prima Facie Defamatory Passages Cannot Justify Ban On Entire Book: Delhi High Court Lifts Blanket Injunction Against HarperCollins’ “Yes Man” Book On Rana Kapoor
The Delhi High Court has held that a finding that certain passages in a literary work are prima facie defamatory does not mean that publication of the work as a whole must be interdicted. It held that interim relief must bear a reasonable relationship to the nature and extent of the prima facie injury. It added that a total ban pending trial tilts the balance towards the right to reputation without addressing the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The Court modified the trial court’s order restraining HarperCollins and author Pavan Chand Lall from selling, distributing or circulating “Yes Man: The Untold Story of Rana Kapoor”. It confined the restraint to the portions containing the four statements found prima facie defamatory or derogatory. It declined to interfere with those findings, holding that the defences of justification and fair comment were not so clearly established as to render Kapoor’s claim bound to fail at trial.
The book was published on December 22, 2020 and concerns the life and career of Rana Kapoor, co-founder and former MD and CEO of Yes Bank, in the context of the bank’s rise and subsequent crisis. Kapoor had sued for permanent injunction, alleging that the book and two related articles and an interview were defamatory and infringed his reputation, privacy, personality and fair trial rights. Lall was proceeded against ex parte and by order dated July 10, 2024, the District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts found 4 Statements defamatory and derogatory, and did not find the remaining statements objectionable. It nonetheless restrained the book in its entirety during the pendency of the suit, and directed removal of the articles and interview. It found that the book would not prejudice the criminal proceedings against Kapoor. HarperCollins and Lall appealed.
The court noted that the book had remained in circulation since December 2020 and that Kapoor was attributed knowledge of it in January 2022, while holding that his incarceration did not disentitle him from relief. Relying on Swami Ramdev v. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. (2018), it held that the trial court had lost sight of the need to balance the rival rights. The Court also observed that Lall, having chosen not to appear before the trial court, could not have factual matters examined for the first time in appeal. It held, however, that his non-appearance could not convert findings on four statements into a finding that the whole book was defamatory.
Read judgement here.
Delhi High Court Restrains US Copyright Proceedings Against TV Today Over Weather Footage
The Delhi High Court, in T.V. Today Network Limited v. Global Weather Productions LLC , restrained US-based Global Weather Productions LLC and other defendants from pursuing copyright infringement proceedings against TV Today Network before the US District Court for the Northern District of California over the use of weather footage in 42 news videos. Justice Tejas Karia observed that the videos were conceived, edited and uploaded in India for Indian audiences, with the relevant evidence and personnel also located in India, making Indian courts the appropriate forum. The Court further held, prima facie, that the jurisdiction declaration under YouTube’s DMCA counter-notification process was a standard-form requirement and did not amount to a negotiated agreement to submit the dispute to US jurisdiction. It also observed that brief extracts of weather footage incorporated into news reporting, narration and commentary may qualify as fair dealing under Section 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and may attract the doctrine of de minimis use. The Court found the parallel US proceedings prima facie vexatious and oppressive, noting the possibility of conflicting decisions, while clarifying that its observations were preliminary and not a final determination of the copyright dispute.
Read judgement here
Kerala film bodies object to CBFC’s new diktat on titles, call it unnecessary expansion of powers and warn legal action
The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) recently issued new guidelines and an advisory for filmmakers submitting their films for certification. One of the rules in the new diktat was that films’ release dates and titles must not be considered final, irrespective of the promotional run. The Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce and the Film Producers Association objected to this, calling it an unnecessary expansion of the board’s powers.
Anil Thomas, president of the Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce, pointed out that having a fixed title is essential for several activities surrounding the film. Whenever a film title is registered with them, they consult other chambers to see whether the title is already used or registered elsewhere. They also ensure that titles are approved only after proper screening to rule out anything offensive or obscene.
B Ragesh, president of the Film Producers Association, also pointed out that a title is essential to the film’s commercial identity. He exclaimed that everything associated with a film is marketed under that name and gave a hypothetical scenario of doing all the promotions and publicity under that name, only to be told two days before its release that one has to change the title.
The film bodies now plan to meet the state cultural affairs minister, PC Vishnunadh, to raise the issue and seek a resolution. They are also reportedly considering legal action if their concerns remain unaddressed.
Ramayana makers issue stern warning over leaked clips, threaten criminal action and contempt proceedings against offenders
The makers of Ramayana: Part 1 or as it is internationally called Ramayana: Rise of a Legend, have issued a strong warning against people recording the film inside theatres and sharing clips online. With the film running in cinemas since November 5, the team has raised concerns over unauthorised footage being circulated on social media and messaging platforms. They have now made it clear that anyone involved in recording or distributing such content could face legal consequences.
The film’s official social media handles shared a legal notice addressing the unauthorised recording and sharing of its footage. The notice also refers to two recent Bombay High Court orders, dated November 2 and November 6, 2026, which restrict people from recording or sharing the film without permission. The makers have also pointed out that such actions are not limited to copyright violations and could invite criminal charges. The team has also asked people who have already uploaded footage from the film to take it down immediately.
NCPCR holds final consultations on guidelines for online safety of children
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights on 12th November, 2026 held a final stakeholder meeting with representatives of social media and online gaming platforms as part of its initiative to formulate comprehensive guidelines on responsible, safe and age-appropriate use of social media by children.
The meeting focused on reviewing the existing child safety measures adopted by digital platforms and deliberating upon the recommendations contained in the Child Safety Implementation Matrix.
The participants shared details of measures already implemented, future plans for implementation and other suggestions. They also made presentations highlighting their existing child safety measures, awareness initiatives for children, parents and caregivers, and plans to further strengthen online safety, the statement said.
The initiative assumes significance amid increasing use of digital platforms by children and concerns over their exposure to harmful and age-inappropriate content, cyberbullying, online grooming, Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM), privacy violations and other forms of online exploitation.
These inputs were examined and consolidated into a Child Safety Implementation Matrix. The matrix included principles like safety by design, age assurance and age-appropriate experience, child data protection, CSEAM detection and enforcement, anti-addictive design and digital wellbeing, reporting and time-bound redressal, empowerment of children and parents, etc., the statement said.
Saregama sees AI boosting efficiency, but vows action against unlicensed use of its music
Music label Saregama India sees artificial intelligence (AI) as a long-term opportunity to reduce costs and accelerate time to market, but will continue to fight the unlicensed use of its music catalogue, the company’s MD Vikram Mehra said.
Speaking to analysts Mehra said the company supports licensed innovation and is incorporating safeguards against dilution of rights and potential fraud into all its new digital licensing agreements.
For catalogue owners, the more immediate concern is the unauthorised use of their songs in AI-generated covers and remakes, rather than competition from AI-generated original music, Mehra said. The company is also proactively engaging with AI creators to explore opportunities to own and distribute AI versions of its popular songs, he added.
He cited Universal’s call for AI-generated filler content to be paid less than human-created music, and Spotify’s efforts to develop licensed remix and cover features with the consent, credit and compensation of rights holders.
FWICE urges Kailash Kher and Jaspinder Narula to withdraw from concerts featuring Pakistani singers
Instagram posts announcing Kailash Kher and Jaspinder Narula’s performances alongside Pakistani singers have drawn criticism from the Federation of Western India Cine Employees (FWICE).
The association has written to the singers and government authorities, urging them to reconsider their participation. While Kher is scheduled to perform with Abida Parveen in Dubai, Jaspinder is slated to share the stage with Ustad Ghulam Ali Khan and Aamir Ghulam Ali in North America between November and December.
Ashoke Pandit, President of the Indian Film and Television Directors’ Association (IFTDA) and Chief Advisor to FWICE, stressed that national interests must take precedence over commercial engagements.
Ashok Dubey, General Secretary of FWICE, questioned the singers’ decision to accept the engagements for commercial reasons and called for government guidelines to prevent similar instances.
Elvis Presley, Eminem music rights holders sue Suno over alleged copyright infringement
Music rights holders associated with Elvis Presley and Eminem have filed separate copyright infringement lawsuits against AI music generator Suno in a California federal court, alleging that the platform used their music without authorisation to develop its technology and produce AI-generated tracks.
The two cases were filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. While the Presley rights holders have also accused Suno of unlawfully exploiting the singer’s identity, Eminem’s music publisher Eight Mile Style has alleged that the platform enables users to generate music and lyrics resembling the rapper’s copyrighted recordings.
The Presley lawsuit involves entities including Authentic Brands Group and Raleigh Music Publishing. The plaintiffs alleged that Suno’s technology allows users to create music resembling Presley’s distinctive singing voice without obtaining the necessary permissions.
They have also invoked Tennessee’s Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, commonly known as the ELVIS Act. Introduced in 2024, the legislation seeks to protect artists against unauthorised AI-generated use of their names, voices, images and likenesses.
In a separate lawsuit, Eight Mile Style, which controls hundreds of Eminem recordings, including ‘Lose Yourself’, ‘Without Me’ and ‘The Real Slim Shady’, accused Suno of copyright infringement. The publisher alleged that the platform allows users to produce tracks and lyrics that replicate elements of Eminem’s work. The rapper is not personally named as a participant in the lawsuit.
The legal representatives of the two groups argued that Suno has commercially benefited from artists’ creative work and identities without securing the required licences.
Responding to the allegations, a Suno spokesperson said the company’s objective was to enable the creation of original music rather than capitalise on artists’ identities. The company said it does not permit users to request specific artists or songs and uses external service providers to examine uploaded audio and lyrics for possible copyright violations. It added that it would continue to strengthen its safeguards, the report added.
The latest lawsuits add to a growing list of legal challenges confronting Suno over its use of copyrighted music. Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment had previously taken legal action against the AI music company over its training practices. Warner Music Group subsequently settled its dispute with Suno in November 2025. Universal Music Group and Sony Music, however, continue to pursue their cases.
